posted at 11:21 am on February 25, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

A little over a year ago, I wrote that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice may have gambled away Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by blocking a South Carolina voter-ID law on its basis. Holder blocked a law that matches another in Indiana, which had already passed constitutional muster, but Indiana isn’t one of the states that needs “pre-clearance” on any changes to electoral law. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court hears arguments on another case that could spell the end of the clause that forces a number of states even before they get to South Carolina:

The Voting Rights Act gave the federal government greater powers to prevent racial discrimination. For the past 48 years, the Justice Department has routinely monitored elections and reviewed changes to any voting rules, ranging from poll locations and hours, to registration and identification requirements and the redrawing of legislative district lines.

The issue before the Supreme Court in next Wednesday’s oral arguments in “Shelby County v. Holder” is just one part of the Voting Rights Act — Section 5 — which requires 9 states and parts of 7 others to obtain Justice Department approval, known as “preclearance,” before changing voting laws or maps.

“It’s not the same as it was as 1964, and to use a test from 1964 is way out of date,” Shelby County Attorney Frank Ellis told CBS News Affiliate WIAT/Birmingham. “It’s time for it to be set aside.”

The act’s defenders believe the law is as relevant as ever and look no further than last year’s election, when states such as Florida and Ohio shortened the days and times for the ever popular early voting.

Proponents also point to a surge in states passing laws requiring voters to produce a government-issued photo ID in order to exercise their right to vote.

Four southern states covered by the Voting Rights Act – Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas — and one northern one, New Hampshire — were among 10 states to adopt strict photo voter ID laws in the past two years. Earlier, Georgia and Louisiana did so.

Jan Crawford presents a balanced report on the issues at hand, noting among other points that this would not affect the rest of the Voting Rights Act. Discrimination can still be brought to light in court — the only process affected would be the pre-clearance requirements:

To get an idea of the disparate treatment that Section 5 ends up delivering, let’s go back to my December 2011 post and the comparison between Indiana and South Carolina:

One of the forms of acceptable photo ID is the South Carolina identification card issued by the state … for free. Applicants have to show proof of residency in the state and a birth certificate or passport that shows US citizenship. If they lack a birth certificate, the state will provide a certified copy for $12, either in person, by mail, or by phone for an additional fee of $12.95. Note that the federal government requires states to check photo-IDs to get gun permits, another right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, for which all of these same fees would apply in South Carolina.

Interestingly, this is almost identical to Indiana, which has a provision for free state IDs but only for the purpose of voting. They require the same documents to get the state ID, and charge between $5 to $12, depending on which county the birth record resides. Why is Indiana important? Because the Supreme Court approved an identical photo-ID voting requirement in Indiana in 2008, not to mention one in Georgia, also covered by Section 5, in 2005 …

In the 2008 case, Section 5 wasn’t an issue, since Indiana wasn’t a covered state under its terms. It will be a big part of the case when Haley pushes it to the Supreme Court, not just on the thin 1.6% difference that the DoJ cited, but because the Court will have to take into account the 2008 case when it decides on South Carolina’s law. They can’t uphold the DoJ’s interpretation without relying on Section 5, but overruling the DoJ on this would all but eviscerate that section — and return the states under its aegis to the same voting-rights standards as every other state in the union, even if the Supreme Court doesn’t explicitly end Section 5, which the 2009 case showed they seriously considered doing at the time.

In 2009, the justices openly wondered just how long Section 5 was going to remain in force, but preferred to have Congress address it. That may be the outcome in this case, too, but the court may lose patience sooner than people expect. The fact that they’re taking this case makes it look like their patience has at least become taxed. It should be an interesting set of arguments this Wednesday, indeed.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

If they lack a birth certificate, the state will provide a certified copy for $12, either in person, by mail, or by phone for an additional fee of $12.95. Note that the federal government requires states to check photo-IDs to get gun permits, another right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, for which all of these same fees would apply in South Carolina.

I would submit that charging any ancillary fee is equivalent to a poll tax and violates the Constitition.

When the law was last renewed democrats changed the wording to make it easier for voter ID laws to be found discriminatory. Of course Republicans caved and voted in favor of the new law instead of demanding that the language remain the same as before.

This whole thing is so stupid! There are so many examples where you HAVE to have a photo ID! Why is it that voting is one the d’s don’t think you should be required to have one, because any person can vote if/if not they are LEGAL citizens! And some, maybe thousands voted more than once?
L

…when states such as Florida and Ohio shortened the days and times for the ever popular early voting.

I guess if Early Voting can’t be made perfect, they should do away with it altogether, after all, you can still get an absentee ballot if you are not able to go to the polls on election day.

I don’t think you have a constitutional right to early voting. It is a real burden on the clerks offices, because with an absentee ballot you submit it, they look you up when they want to and process it when they have the time. With early voting, people are waiting in line while people have problems over where they are registered, and voting provisionally, and the voters expect to be waiting on that second. The towns can’t handle it because it is not election day. On election day they are ready for the crowds, the questions, the provisional ballots, and they don’t have to do their usual jobs as well.

The act’s defenders believe the law is as relevant as ever and look no further than last year’s election, when states such as Florida and Ohio shortened the days and times for the ever popular early voting.

The Constitution is pretty clear on the inalienable right to early voting.

would submit that charging any ancillary fee is equivalent to a poll tax and violates the Constitition.

Ditto for any charges for gun licensing.

unclesmrgol on February 25, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I would disagree, the nominal fee is for getting the replacement birth certificate not for the ID, and even if it were it would not be for the act of voting, just to show your eligibility to vote. Hence, no poll tax, per se.

I guess if Early Voting can’t be made perfect, they should do away with it altogether, after all, you can still get an absentee ballot if you are not able to go to the polls on election day.

I don’t think you have a constitutional right to early voting. It is a real burden on the clerks offices, because with an absentee ballot you submit it, they look you up when they want to and process it when they have the time. With early voting, people are waiting in line while people have problems over where they are registered, and voting provisionally, and the voters expect to be waiting on that second. The towns can’t handle it because it is not election day. On election day they are ready for the crowds, the questions, the provisional ballots, and they don’t have to do their usual jobs as well.

Fleuries on February 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Ohio tried to promote the absentee process this past cycle. Heck even I voted by absentee, as quite frankly, I made up my mind long ago on who I was going to vote for.

The early voting process is only so that Dems can bus in as many college students and unionistas as possible into the polling places so as to goose the vote total in their favor (I even saw this happen when I was still a college student, as a fair number of people have). It was a mistake from the get-go and deserves to be abolished for all eternity.

ANY gun licensing, registration or restrictions regardless of whether their are any fee’s involved are unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of if not the single most simple, straight forward and crystal clear right refereed to in the Bill of Rights.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

It requires that one be personally dishonest with themselves as well as everyone else they come in contact with to fail to grasp the indisputable meaning behind the 2nd Amendment.

It starts off by informing everyone who reads it, exactly what the Founding Fathers thought of the Professional Military’s of any and every Nation. That in the end, those Military’s would be loyal not to the citizens, but to the State.

It then proceeds to provide remedy and relief to the problem associated with a State Military being employed against the citizens of the United States of America.

It provides this remedy and relief in as simple and indisputable of terms imaginable, terms that no English speaking person could possibly misunderstand or confuse.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Right in that statement, “The right of the People” any liberal dream or hope of a legal penumbra is obliterated. That statement, “The right of the People” makes it incontrovertibly and indisputably clear that firearms owners and the right to carry them on ones person, whether concealed or openly, was not being conferred by the 2nd amendment, but was an already existing right that under no circumstances what so ever was the Federal or State Governments of the United States of America to ever infringe upon.

The 2nd amendment does not give anyone the right to keep or bear a firearm. It is a legal injunction permanently and completely baring the Federal or State Governments from ever restricting, abridging, halting, interfering with or infringing upon the firearms ownership of any citizen.

In the phrase “Shall not be infringed” the choice of the word “Infringed” was no accident, it was not a negotiated compromise that finally settled upon the word, “Infringed”.

The Founding Fathers were educated highly intelligent men who were 100 percent cognizant with the definition and historical origins of the word “Infringe”.

infringe
Use Infringe in a sentence
in·fringe
[in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object)
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.
Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

“Shall” derives from the Old English “sceal” meaning “must”. in other words, shall not=Must Not. Thus “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” incontrovertibly and indisputably means that no free citizen of the United States of America shall ever be restricted, prohibited or denied the right to own a firearm and to carry that firearm on their person.

I live in a university town. The population is a ‘mish-mash’ of ethinicties. We have a mixed-race ‘president’. I’m tired of ‘minorities’ getting an easier ride than the rest of us. It’s long past due to revise/scrap the VRA!

The ultimate voting rights law is to allow only American who are not retired and are paying income taxes to vote… Americans who are not retired who are in working age and are not paying taxes shall not vote.

Americans who are not retired who are in working age and are not paying taxes shall not vote.

mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Ok, that is just plain stupid and bigoted. With that single phrase of imbecilic stupidity you have just erased the entire sufferance movement. You have just stripped every stay at home mom of her voting rights. Like I said, pure imbecilic stupidity.

I guess if Early Voting can’t be made perfect, they should do away with it altogether, after all, you can still get an absentee ballot if you are not able to go to the polls on election day.

I don’t think you have a constitutional right to early voting.
Fleuries on February 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I agree on getting rid of Early Voting. However, the absentee should be for those who will be out of the country. And I say, if you aren’t in country, then you need to go to the nearest embassy or military base and cast your vote while showing your valid ID. For those serving in active military, they can have from mid-October to report to a base to cast their vote. No mailing in votes that get lost on the way.

I like David Weber’s idea of the “poll tax” as implemented in the Star Kingdom of Manticore: The taxpayer-funded services an individual receives are subtracted from their own tax burden. If the number is positive, even by one penny, they can vote. If it is negative, no vote.

Ok, that is just plain stupid and bigoted. With that single phrase of imbecilic stupidity you have just erased the entire sufferance movement. You have just stripped every stay at home mom of her voting rights. Like I said, pure imbecilic stupidity.

SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM

If they do not pay taxes they shall not vote. This applies to both men and women who are not retired and in working age.

I like David Weber’s idea of the “poll tax” as implemented in the Star Kingdom of Manticore: The taxpayer-funded services an individual receives are subtracted from their own tax burden. If the number is positive, even by one penny, they can vote. If it is negative, no vote.

Sekhmet on February 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM

So, any veteran disabled in the service of the United States of America should be deprived of their right to vote unless they are employed, despite being disabled. Yea, sorry, cannot accept that. Also cannot accept that any woman who happens to be a stay at home mom should be deprived of her right to vote because she is not “Employed” either.

The whole law is unconstitutional anyway. You can’t hold some states to a certain standard then other states to another.

Also, the Constitution left control of elections to the States, except in three instances of amendment (mandating that blacks can vote, mandating that women can vote, and mandating that 18 year olds can vote).

So you are OK with the parasites welfare queens and kings who are living on taxpayers expense to vote… You think that this will be against the stay at home moms and I really do not give a damn about them. If they do not pay taxes they shall not vote…

So you are OK with the parasites welfare queens and kings who are living on taxpayers expense to vote… You think that this will be against the stay at home moms and I really do not give a damn about them. If they do not pay taxes they shall not vote…

mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM

And that will be the law of the land in our next Republic, if we are fortunate to have one.

Allowing everyone who breathes the right to vote and counting them equally whether they be producer or parasite has proven to be the death of this country. There is no check and balance possible on that, thus the whole thing goes off the rails, since once the Looters achieve a voting majority (which they now have) there is nothing short of civil war that can stop them from looting the public treasury dry and causing the complete collapse of our economy and government.

So you are OK with the parasites welfare queens and kings who are living on taxpayers expense to vote… You think that this will be against the stay at home moms and I really do not give a damn about them. If they do not pay taxes they shall not vote…

mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM

A) it’s a fascist proposal and has no place what so ever in a Constitutional Republic.

B) it is an open invitation to the “Law of Unintended Consequences” to bite your a$$ clean off.

C) it disenfranchises every citizen who looses their job or otherwise becomes unemployed for any reason. Or does not have a job due to various personal or family obligations.

A) it’s a fascist proposal and has no place what so ever in a Constitutional Republic.

Allowing people who contribute nothing to vote for politicians who promise to take my labor and property to give to them isn’t fascist?

B) it is an open invitation to the “Law of Unintended Consequences” to bite your a$$ clean off.

How? If you don’t own a share of stock, you aren’t permitted to vote at shareholder’s meetings of a corporation. If you don’t pay any taxes, why should you get a say in the direction of our government? You have “no skin” in the game.

C) it disenfranchises every citizen who looses their job or otherwise becomes unemployed for any reason. Or does not have a job due to various personal or family obligations.

If it matters that much to you that’s a lot of incentive to get off your butt and GET a job, isn’t it?

And if you meet your personal or family obligations by expecting other taxpayers to feed you, why should you be allowed to vote yourself more cheese when you don’t earn anything?

Furthermore, it singles you out as a misogynist.
SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I’m just as in favor of taking the vote away from welfare seeders as I am breeders. How is that misogynist?

A) it’s a fascist proposal and has no place what so ever in a Constitutional Republic.

B) it is an open invitation to the “Law of Unintended Consequences” to bite your a$$ clean off.

C) it disenfranchises every citizen who looses their job or otherwise becomes unemployed for any reason. Or does not have a job due to various personal or family obligations.

Furthermore, it singles you out as a misogynist.

SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Did you know that only property owners were allowed to vote until 1850?… If you do not like it pick it up with the Founding Fathers…

I will have an exception for part C about the unemployed, however if they stay unemployed for more than 3 years and on elections day they lose their right to vote in the next elections and they will get back their right to votes once they get a job.

I agree on getting rid of Early Voting. However, the absentee should be for those who will be out of the country. And I say, if you aren’t in country, then you need to go to the nearest embassy or military base and cast your vote while showing your valid ID. For those serving in active military, they can have from mid-October to report to a base to cast their vote. No mailing in votes that get lost on the way.
LoganSix on February 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM

I vote absentee because of mobility issues. My voting location is at a mega church with multiple wings, all parking is FAR from each door, including handicap spots, and usually they don’t have seating options while waiting in line. In 2008, the line was 45 minutes during working hours and it damn near killed me (knee pain). That is the last time I voted in person on Election Day. They only had one sit down voting machine and there was another wait for that one, too.

So don’t be so dismissive of why some people vote absentee even if they are not traveling on Election Day.

A few days ago, I drove an extra 10 miles to a DMV office to renew my driver’s license. The office closest to me is inside a huge shopping center, very far from any outside entrance, handicap parking is very far from the entrances, too. And there is no casual seating in the middle of that indoor center on the way to the inner entrance of that DMV office. When I went there in 2006 when I moved here, that hike damn near killed me, too. The location I drove to a few days ago had a direct outside entrance and parking no more than 30 feet from the door.

Thankfully, I don’t have to go in person again for another 8 years. And MI just enacted its own voter ID so that license is needed to vote. I made the effort to get my state ID, anyone else can, too. In fact, we have a regional tax that covers mobility impaired people who can’t make it to a bus stop and can’t drive. So for $5 they get a subsidized van ride from their front door and back when they have appointments to get to, which would include the state ID for voting. So there is no excuse to not have one for anyone who wants to vote who is legally allowed to vote.

The ultimate voting rights law is to allow only American who are not retired and are paying income taxes to vote… Americans who are not retired who are in working age and are not paying taxes shall not vote.

And that will be the law of the land in our next Republic, if we are fortunate to have one.

Allowing everyone who breathes the right to vote and counting them equally whether they be producer or parasite has proven to be the death of this country. There is no check and balance possible on that, thus the whole thing goes off the rails, since once the Looters achieve a voting majority (which they now have) there is nothing short of civil war that can stop them from looting the public treasury dry and causing the complete collapse of our economy and government.

wildcat72 on February 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Exactly… Parasites will vote only to get more money from the producers and hence they vote for the destruction of the nation… Therefore they shall not be allowed to vote…

I will have an exception for part C about the unemployed, however if they stay unemployed for more than 3 years and on elections day they lose their right to vote in the next elections and they will get back their right to votes once they get a job.

mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 12:59 PM

As I suggested, your Voter ID comes as part of your W-2. Make it good from April 15 to April 15.

The consequences of restricting the voting franchise to actual taxpayers would create a situation where no one should ever have to go a year without a job unless they are lazy.

Don’t deceive yourself Ed, the Supreme Court is not going to willingly nor accidentally take away the Democrats only true winning advantage.

SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Then they will have a hard time enforcing I.D. for gun purchases…that’s the box that the libs have put themselves in.

Either you need I.D. for both, or neither…

right2bright on February 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM

If we were living in a Constitutional Republic and operating under the rule of law; that would be true. Neither of those conditions currently apply, and the law is whatever Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen decide at any given moment is in their immediate interest. It has no requirement for either consistency, or permanence. It will change at whim depending on who it benefits.

The good news is that laws created and applied without the consent of the governed lack legitimacy and probably will not be obeyed, with sequalae to those who impose them.

You idiots are acting like a bunch of liberals… When all fail accuse others of bigotry… If the law applies to men and women and regardless of skin color or anything else how is it going to be bigoted… Now go and f*** yourself fool…

Proposal: Amendment to the Constitution:
A flat $100 poll tax. 50% of all proceeds go to the feds, and the rest to the states where the voters reside in (absentees counted as regular voters, oversees and vets exempt).

So, any veteran disabled in the service of the United States of America should be deprived of their right to vote unless they are employed, despite being disabled. Yea, sorry, cannot accept that. Also cannot accept that any woman who happens to be a stay at home mom should be deprived of her right to vote because she is not “Employed” either.

SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Psst, if she’s married, she’s probably not taking government money for anything, so any taxes she pays go over that one cent threshold. Non-working spouses can be assessed their “share” of the family filing.

There can be an exemption for disabled military, or others injured in service to the country (such as intelligence agents, FBI agents, and the like).

Listen little f***… If the laws applies to men and women and regardless of skin color or anything else how is it going to be bigoted… Now go and f*** yourself fool…

mnjg on February 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM

STFD and STFU. You want to use what the Founding Fathers did as a rule, then suck it up fool, the Founding Father made SLAVERY legal, no they weren’t always right. Yes, the Founding Father originally only allowed WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS the right to vote, and they were bigots and misogynists and so are you. You want to go back to what the Founding Fathers did, then there you are, a bigot and a misogynist, like I said, STFD and STFU.

The American Revolution was fought in part over the issue of voting. The Revolutionaries rejected the British argument that representation in Parliament could be virtual (that is, that English members of Parliament could adequately represent the interests of the colonists). Instead, the Revolutionaries argued that government derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

This made many restrictions on voting seem to be a violation of fundamental rights. During the period immediately following the Revolution, some states replaced property qualifications with taxpaying requirements. This reflected the principle that there should be “no taxation without representation.” Other states allowed anyone who served in the army or militia to vote. Vermont was the first state to eliminate all property and taxpaying qualifications for voting.

By 1790, all states had eliminated religious requirements for voting. As a result, approximately sixty to seventy percent of adult white men could vote. During this time, six states (Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) permitted free African-Americans to vote. “

Seems it was pretty quick that the founders came around to letting blacks vote. Blacks that were not the property of a master who could dictate their votes that is.

As for poll taxes, I tend to think the people who pay for government should dictate EXACTLY what that government is. The way it is now, 50% of the population pays 97% of the income taxes. As you can see, the people who support the government slightly more than 3% have more than 50% of the potential votes in this nation. If you think that is moral, then you have problems. If you think that it is wise, you have problems, and if you think it is sustainable, that effectively 50% or more of the population is shielded from the cost of government, you are insane.

We have gone from the taxation without representation to representation without taxation. Both are equally evil and unjust.

Your lack of skill at argumentation and negotiation is not helpful to your supposed cause. You have suggested (without any caveats) a return to a system that was facially racially discriminatory. You have suggested that you don’t care if your idea would prevent otherwise good citizens from voting because they are women. You have frequently and consistently had to bowdlerize your responses to others here. When called out on these items, you have repeated your foul language and name-calling. Methinks the commenter doth protest too much.

You have suggested that you don’t care if your idea would prevent otherwise good citizens from voting because they are women.

GWB

Uh…no he didn’t. And no one with a lick of reading comprehension skills could come to that conclusion. Nowhere in this thread did he say women should be prevented from voting because they are women. The only time he mentioned women at all was in response to someone else who brought up women.

When called out on these items, you have repeated your foul language and name-calling. Methinks the commenter doth protest too much.

GWB

Maybe if folks like you didn’t say he said things he didn’t say(like liberals tend to do), he wouldn’t be so angry.

And for the record, I’m not defending his plan. But if you’re going to disagree with him, at least disagree based on what he said, not something he didn’t say.